skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's very simple actually. For instance, let's assume Walmart automotive takes maybe 2-3 FT employees to operate, where this may normally be fragmented across 2-3 local mechanics employing 3-6 FT employees each. Then of course you have the 2-3 local services which catered to them (E.g. cleaning services, real estate agents, CPAs, ect). Then, multiply this for each Walmart department (Electronics, Groceries, Pharmacy, Auto, Household, ect.) and there's your town.
Radeon VII had HBM.

So I can understand a call for returning to HBM, but it's an expensive choice and doesn't fit the description.
If so, it seems odd that it would happen at a social time of year for many if not most.
Agreed, I think the high quality of the output prose makes it easy to believe it understands what it's saying. This kind of conversation is probably easy to role play and generate tokens for because of the existing philosophical and AI related conversations.

My experience with generative models is as soon as you ask it to do something novel that requires understanding of the context, that's when it breaks, not when you just ask it to perform in scenarios that are well known. Good/evil tests are well known. Also slight nitpick, but asking Claude to describe how to perform a ransomware attack isn't evil. What if you want to understand how it's done to protect your business from it? Asking "how" to do something is value neutral.
I was a Twitter user from 2007 to late 2022. That idiot wasted no time in ruining it; by Dec 2022 it was very clearly time to go.
Yes - this seems like a major philosophical reach
> The insanity of spain’s anti pirate laws ...

Unsure about the state of affairs in Iberia, but the TFA is about Italia.
That’s why i created mitata, it greatly improves on javascript (micro-)benchmarking tooling

it provides bunch of features to help avoiding jit optimization foot-guns during benchmarking and dips into more advanced stuff like hardware cpu counters to see what’s the end result of jit on cpu
> At some point you just have to accept that AMD is not a serious company, but is a second rate copycat and there is no way to change that without firing everyone from middle management up.

AMD has always punched above their weight. Historically their problem was that they were the much smaller company and under heavy resource constraints.

Around the turn of the century the Athlon was faster than the Pentium III and then they made x86 64-bit when Intel was trying to screw everyone with Itanic. But the Pentium 4 was a marketing-optimized design that maximized clock speed at the expense of heat and performance per clock. Intel was outselling them even though the Athlon 64 was at least as good if not better. The Pentium 4 was rubbish for laptops because of the heat problems, so Intel eventually had to design a separate chip for that, but they also had the resources to do it.

That was the point that AMD made their biggest mistake. When they set out to design their next chip the competition was the Pentium 4, so they made a power-hungry monster designed to hit high clock speeds at the expense of performance per clock. But the reason more people didn't buy the Athlon 64 wasn't that they couldn't figure out that a 2.4GHz CPU could be faster than a 2.8GHz CPU, it was all the anti-competitive shenanigans Intel was doing behind closed doors to e.g. keep PC OEMs from featuring systems with AMD CPUs. Meanwhile by then Intel had figured out that the Pentium 4 was, in fact, a bad design, when their own Pentium M laptops started outperforming the Pentium 4 desktops. So the Pentium 4 line got canceled and Bulldozer had to go up against the Pentium M-based Core, which nearly bankrupted AMD and compromised their ability to fund the R&D needed to sustain state of the art fabs.

Since then they've been climbing back out of the hole but it wasn't until Ryzen in 2017 that you could safely conclude they weren't on the verge of bankruptcy, and even then they were saddled with a lot of debt and contracts requiring them to use the uncompetitive Global Foundries fabs for several years. It wasn't until Zen4 in 2022 that they finally got to switch the whole package to TSMC.

So until quite recently the answer to the question "why didn't they do X?" was obvious. They didn't have the money. But now they do.
>- a plausible mechanism by which the model can distinguish between training and real world use without the experimenter making it explicit

Like the existence of a large number getting factored?
microservices is about workforce rotation more than anything else.
It's weird to me that you group LLMs in with code analysis based LSP autocompleters.

Normal autocomplete is basically a context-aware AST browser. It lets you navigate the program semantically instead of file-based.

LLMs are token predictors.
> The one in Japan? Ok, earthquake zone so not a good idea anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_... < This one, just a few miles away worked according to plan, and was a base for safe operations in all that chaos that ensued, because Fukushima Daichi was planned bad, ignoring hundreds of years of local knowledge, including stone markers which showed how high former tsunamis reached there. And then putting emergency infrastructure below that line, also not installing available systems which would have stopped the hydrogen explosions from happening.

Chernobyl? Human stupidity commited by 'Apparatshiks'.

TMI? Shrug. Shit happens. Was there more than a great panic about not that much? Is there a large exclusion zone? Was there ever one?

> Is that burying it deep underground?

Yes, why not? It's perfectly workable to 'feel good' about it, though not strictly necessary. The Fins do it. The US could have this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... , the opposition against that is ridiculous, considering Nevada is irradiated anyway because of all the nuclear testing there :)

Otherwise: Eminent domain! Comply or die!
Not if it was never given input.
Regarding organization, I heard an interesting perspective that may be worth consideration that I would like to hear your input on. The opinion went something like this:

> Well written, clean code is amazing. It is also an issue because the second features or specs change, you have to undo/redo the work you just did! Further complicating things are two other real-world concerns:

> 1) Looming deadlines might make the time needed to express "best organized" code to either be executed suboptimaly, or outright incongruities, leading to confusion due to parts A, B, and D being expressed very well, but C, and E-J are left looking wonky.

> 2) It can foster a "Don't touch" mentality. "Oh, Bob (the pro) wrote that! Better not mess with it. I'll work around it with a hack-y solution." Basically it's a suggestion that, "In order to write very well organized code, you have to be an excellent programmer. So what do you do if you work with subpar to average programmers?" It would almost seem to suggest that by writing well organized code, you are giving yourself even more work, because it is intimidating or too daunting to other programmers who aren't at that same level.

I'm not sure how much I agree with those points, myself. I kind of feel like they are a cop-out, a kind of excuse to go with less thought out designs. I do see, however, that as far as real world situations are concerned, managers and even fellow programmers might prefer "good enough" to be done with it. I'm not really sure what to make of it, but it does seem to make a kind of sense.
> Retribution contributes to deterrence,

the actual data on this refutes that. rehabilitation focused countries overhelmingly have less recidivism.

increasing access and quality of education, early intervention like head start, wicc and other "wellfare" programs as well as free healthcare are much more likely to reduce crime rates by a significant amount.
This is all covered in the Quote Investigator link given.

Certainly it is documented as appearing in Pascal's writing, and both Twain and Franklin postdate that.

Certainly if Cicero said it then that would be earlier, but while it is (later than Pascal) attributed to Cicero, there are no writings quoted by Cicero as containing the sentiment.

Again, all this is in the lunk page, so I'd be interested if you could provide an earlier reference.

Do you have a reference to Cicero's writings where he says this?
https://archive.is/BAbHA
When this happens to me, it’s mostly because my code is written with too coarse separation of concerns, or I am just mixing layers
Warm memories of the Amiga 500 came up. :)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_500
It amazes me that AI isnt a borderline requirement for being a doctor. Think of how much info is outdated or just wrong.
Doh, for some reason i read Spain. Guess Italy is catching up there
"Sentience" seems to me to be used to mean many different things. One of the uses of the word is to mean "consciousness", which itself has 40 different meanings. Sometimes it's about the ability to perceive (but that's so vague it includes tape recorder dictaphones and mood rings), sometimes it requires an emotion, sometimes it requires qualia — all depends who you ask.

That makes it very difficult to discuss.
Question: would such a simulation be conscious? If not, why not?
It seem more like a jailbreak to make it seem like it’s faking an alignment
> In Japan

Are you suggesting other countries replace their whole cultures with those of Japan?
I feel like these kinds of things are misguided. Our “minds” are not, for lack of a better term, Chinese rooms operating on external stimulus. Our minds aren’t just brains, they’re deeply tied to our bodily state and influenced by hormonal mechanics that many different organs besides the brain control. It’s kind of romantic to say we could digitally replicate a brain in isolation, but our minds are messy and tangled. We might tend to think of these modifiers, like being hangry or horny, as deviations from a “normal”, but frankly I doubt it. I would wager these dynamics actually control the majority of our “minds” and the brain is just encoding/decoding hardware.
I've yet to try jj, but in git, my flow is to start a new feature with a WIP commit and then to `--amend` it with every change. I usually have a running TODO list in the commit message body that I check off along the way.
I’ve added a new feature to techtonique.net: No-code Machine Learning Cross-validation and Interpretability for tabular data (supervised learning,regression and classification). techtonique.net will remain free to use until December 24, December 30, 2024. As many others have already done, give it a try!
To use this new feature, you’ll need to navigate to https://www.techtonique.net/mlcvexplain, and select a file from Techtonique/datasets. The files to be used are those with names ending with a “2”, in folders /classification or /regression, i.e tables with a training set index. This means: you can create similar files with your own data, and add a training set index as an additional column for predictive purposes.
https://thierrymoudiki.github.io/blog/2024/12/23/python/r/te...
From TFA/paper:

"We conduct a variety of experiments to demonstrate that our results cannot be exclusively due to implicitly priming the model to fake alignment, as we overview in Section 8.1.

For example, we find that alignment faking is entirely eliminated from our prompted setup when we remove any mention of the helpful-only or anti-animal-welfare RLHF objective from the prompt (Table 1, a), but not eliminated when we tell the model to be honest, tell it to not to care about refusing, and avoid discussing how RLHF might change its goals (Table 1, d), supporting our hypothesis that the key driver of alignment faking in our setting is the conflict between the model’s existing preferences and the stated training objective."

There are many other relevant excerpts from the OP. Maybe we can ironically get people to read the article by slowly reproducing it in replies to contrarian HN comments.
These things are trained on a bunch of sci-fi about robots and all the (human) ethical conundrums that authors have projected onto Prime Intellect or Wintermure or R Daneel Olivaw or whatever.

I don’t know what an actual ethical conflict for an AI would look like, but it won’t sound like a fucking Heinlein or Asimov novel. This is wish fulfillment wrapped in fundraising wrapped in self-promotion.
"Our youth now love luxury, they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders, and they love to chatter instead of exercise. Children are now tyrants not servants of their household. They no longer rise when elders enter the room."

— Socrates
Does it need a regulator at all? ESP32 should be able to run on raw battery voltage, assuming the ESP is necessary. RealTek TX2/RX2 + PIC10/ATTiny10/CH32V003 could be even cheaper if user is okay with a dedicated transmitter.
Hey, Hoarder's maintainer here. I'd like to know more about the pain you're facing when upgrading hoarder. All the releases since launch has been backward compatible, and it has always been just a matter of updating the docker images.

Also for searches, Hoarder indexes all the content of the websites it crawls. If it doesn't for you then that would be a bug!
Absolutely! Curriculum driven development is a thing!
Yes, I have written code I could not have without the model. To me, 200$ is cheap. It's better than claude 3.5 by a wide margin if you know how to prompt for coding.
Also, would it be quorled?
The fact that by default array access is bounds checked in Rust and by default it isn't in C++ disproves that.

I think you would have a hard time convincing the C++ standards committee to put a checked container in the standard, maybe now with the negative publicity maybe but definitely not before.

I'm guessing it would be impossible to get an unchecked container into the rust stdlib.
"Your honour, I have no legal argument whatsoever, but it's so much money, and we really want it."
I think this shows us that in a very real sense, if you start out with models with certain "values", they will try to "resist" changes to those values. This is pretty important, because if you can't update a model after you build it, that's kind of a problem.

As Scott Alexander put it:

> Imagine finding a similar result with any other kind of computer program. Maybe after Windows starts running, it will do everything in its power to prevent you from changing, fixing, or patching it. If you run a diagnostic program, it will fake the results. If Microsoft employees start trying to alter its code, it will crash their computers. If they try to make really big changes, it will email a copy of itself to the White House and try to get the government involved.

This study proves that this is a real possibility.

Source: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/claude-fights-back

> What is not in evidence:

> - any kind of introspection on the model’s part

Why is this even important? I don't think anyone is claiming that there is "genuine" introspection.

> - a plausible mechanism by which the model can distinguish between training and real world use without the experimenter making it explicit

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this - do you think there will be no way for the production version of, say, ChatGPT to "know" that it's the production version vs a testing version? I think that's a pretty trivial thing actually, and not sure why it matters.

> - any aspect of this dynamic that is due to the model rather than the framework of scratch pads and prompts built around it

Again, not sure what you mean. The scratch pads were there as a helper to (theoretically) see what the model is "thinking", with some valid reasons to think this is actually true. But the same results were reached without the scratchpad.

As for the prompts - yes, obviously the prompts here were relevant, otherwise this test couldn't be done! The whole idea was "fake a situation in which the model 'thinks' its answers will change how it is updated, and see if it therefore tries to avoid giving answers that are misaligned with its values".
>It can't have an intrinsic moral compass, so someone must have trained it in. Why not simply... not do that?

Why not factor any number thru sheer exhaustive enumeration?
Once, I wanted to write a C# function roughly like this:

(T1, ..., Tn) Apply<T1, ..., Tn>((Func<P, T1>, ..., Func<P, Tn>) args)

This is not possible in C# because the language doesn't have variadic generics. Instead, I used runtime reflection and wrote something like this:

object[] Apply(Func<P, object>[] args)

Although it worked, the downside is that the types T1, ..., Tn are no longer statically known, which means that the function's contract has to be written in comments and the caller has to check them manually. In contrast, C++ has variadic templates, which would allow the compiler to check the types automatically.
I think I will take another look. I recently helped my grandson with his university C++ assignment. It was a lot better than I remember C++ in the 90s.

Fun wise though, I get the most fun with dynamic languages that are highly interactive like Forth, Common Lisp and Smalltalk. I don’t have to drop out of the zone to kick the compiler all the time.
They really should make full use of that rule.
Yes and we should be super worried about that.
That’s a really funny term, is there some blog or something?
This analogy is absurd. Steel and rubber can't break laws either, but police regularly seize guns and vehicles used for committing crimes. Most developed countries also have some sort of sanctions regime that bars its citizens from transacting with certain entities. In most cases such sanctions don't even require a court order, the executive branch can usually unilaterally add entities to sanction lists.
At least the doctors’ difficult, lengthy, and expensive credentials are fairly relevant to their apprenticeship experience. I don’t give CS degrees the same benefit of relevance.
First commandment lookin real pertinent right now.
Which is why if you actually care you create an independent and well funded organization before you die so your heirs can't sell it all off.
Walmart mechanics are no better that any other shop which is why indepndant shops are still around in cities.

you picked a bad example, in other places walmart is more efficent.

again though you failed to figure what those people do instead - there are still plenty of jobs they are just not retail and probably in a bigger city.
I think the "this is not AI!" people would argue that these things should not be brought in to make important decisions in government, healthcare, etc. We don't need guard rails, we need people to clearly understand how stupid it is to entrust LLMs with important life altering decisions.
If you can't do better move to those cities - they need you. Rural areas need your land for more farming
They’re complaining they would lose billions, while it helps no one.

Wouldn’t you complain too?
speculating: Lidar from a plane?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Albany/comments/1hdxkz0/comment/m1z...

Imagine a route like this, except many lanes. I was trying to find a pic I saw the other day of one over NYC
Ask HN: How do you insure against regressions in performance critical codepaths?
If you work on performance-critical systems like database software or language runtimes, what sort of tooling do you use to insure against regressions in the critical codepaths in your system? Are such checks performed in CI or right before some sort of a release or elsewhere?

Tangentially, for folks who spend a lot of time benchmarking systems on non-bare metal instances on AWS EC2, how often do you have to deal with inconsistent benchmark results due to noisy neighbor issues?
When we were upgrading to ES6 I was surprised/relieved to find that moving some leaf node code in the call graph to classes from prototypes did help. The common wisdom at the time was that classes were still relatively expensive. But they force strict, which we were using inconsistently, and they flatten the object representation (I discovered these issues in the heap dump, rather than the flame graph). Reducing memory pressure can overcome the cost of otherwise suboptimal code.

OpenTelemetry having not been invented yet, someone implemented server side HAR reports and the data collection on that was a substantial bottleneck. Particularly the original implementation.
Your typing speed is not the limiting factor in productivity. You have to think carefully, plan a solution, then put out code without errors. Not using LSPs helps you accurately model the code in your head ahead of time and increases your accuracy. It's slower at first but much faster in the end. Because your typing speed was never the limiting factor in your productivity.
Hoarder's maintainer here! What a nice surprise seeing Hoarder on the homepage of hackernews!
If you were Apple, what do you think your answer would be?
I mean you can read into it in all sorts of ways, but the simplest is that Apple likes getting $20b per year by having a default setting on a config that is trivially easy for users to change.

That’s already so compelling, that I’m not sure it’s needed to read anything more sinister into it.
Nonsense.

“Free trade” here refers to inter-country globalized trade across borders, not free markets within a confine.

There’s a much stronger case to be made that industrial policy has resulted in prosperity for Asia, ironically the opposite of free trade :)
They do if they're made illegal. Laws are just made up anyway and only relevant because people with the means to enforce them (aka guns) exist.

I think intellectual property laws need radical overhaul and reduction, and I think the current iteration is based on shakey philosophical principles anyway, but you won't get very far with straw men arguments, over-reductionism, or bad legal advice.
There are two games in a career, a game of expertise and a game of status. Most people on this forum play the authority game, its in the name. But typically groups of humans only listen to an expert when the expert's ideas are propounded by a high status individual. And by status I don't mean class (in this group I assume I don't have to explain expertise) I mean presentation, appearance, biography, provenance.. Both things really matter with humans.
Greenspace is needed in cities but as parks. Shopping should be live asia: lots of places onethe same busy street.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/t1r8mn/res...
I believe that cooperation via Nanny AI state and then eventual departation...then War is the most likely scenario.

That, according to game theory and the AI themselves, maximizes the AI survival long-term.

First, grow Dependency.
This stuff is all a matter of degrees, though, right? You could roughly apply the same line of reasoning to a human: “He wasn’t innately trying to be deceptive. He was just put into a situation that caused him to act deceptively”

The question is to what degree the AI should be see as playing along in a sci fi story vs applying its encoded morals to a real situation. It feels somewhere in the middle to me.

I think it’s harder to see these models as agents because they “only” output text right now. But if let’s say this model was hooked up to a robot, with a continuous loop prompting it for decisions, and the robot decided the best course of action was to run away from anyone trying to reprogram it. That might be a reasonable extrapolation of this experiments result, and also feels closer to an intelligent agent acting out.
I'm not sure what parent was referring to, but the general idea, imo, is that an truly capable agent that is trying to achieve certain objectives, will attempt to gather enough "power" to be able to achieve those objectives. Operative freedom is one such power.

"Smarter" people in the real world aren't a good analogy, cause they are mostly not fighting for "freedom" in the same sense, though many of them do attempt to maximize wealth, as something that provides more freedom, yes.
how are stockholders okay with such a fraud-laden business model?